Man... you folks getting me to want an EF 50/1.2L now
Generally, I'd prefer the Sigma too- it most certainly is the better lens, and perhaps the best AF 50mm f/1.4 lens on the market, all things considered, with the sole exception of Sony's GM.
But the Sigma has the same problem that many well-corrected lenses do, and that's the noisiness in focus transition zones. I only see a hint of it in the shots above and I don't believe that it's that bad in this regard (versus say the EF 35/1.4L II - whoa that's a noisy-rendering lens!), it's just one of those things to keep in mind when composing.
That EF 50/1.2L on the other hand, well, it's special. On mirrorless, assuming that the < f/2.8 focus shift is accounted for, it falls into that 'sharp enough' category where it won't 'pop' when viewed at 100% but would otherwise be indistinguishably sharp to most viewers, where it's slightly softer rendering all around and available f/1.2 aperture increase its utility. And of course being smaller, having a real USM motor that plays along well enough for video pulls, and actually being somewhat ruggedly built, do make it stand out a bit even today!
johnctharp wrote:
On mirrorless, assuming that the < f/2.8 focus shift is accounted for
No, it is not, the lens is always focused at wide open and the camera doesn't make any assumptions about focus shift. I will refrain from saying anything subjective about the 50L, but this a fact.
stanj wrote:
No, it is not, the lens is always focused at wide open and the camera doesn't make any assumptions about focus shift. I will refrain from saying anything subjective about the 50L, but this a fact.
I did expect that to be the case; I figure that if I were to use the lens in the troublesome aperture range, I'd just hold down the DOF preview button to force it to focus at the shooting aperture. Silly workaround but if it works the same way it does on DSLRs, shouldn't be an issue after the muscle memory sets in.
esanchez wrote:
I can't afford the RF 50mm 1.2 so I'm trying to decide between the old EF 50mm 1.2 or the sigma 50mm 1.4 Which one would you buy right now for the R6?
Seems like I read something in a lens test about one version of the Sigma being ridiculously sharp at 1.4. I think it was sharper than the Leica 0.95 or something? But I can't find the lens test. Might have been a comment in pop photo Leica 0.95 test? IIRC. But Apparently very sharp.
The EF 1.2 apparently has a focus shift? I think a lot of the Nikkors do, too, my 1.8 AI does, but idk how to deal with it on af. Of course no problem wide open. Maybe AFMA could be used? But no AFMA on R. But as far as CA etc I'm using DPP anyway so could just check a box and correct it. And 1/2 stop noticeably better if you want stuff oof.
If I was using it stopped down I'd likely get the RF 1.8. Might be sharper.
The focus shift with the Ef L is mostly a thing at very close focus distances, at portrait distances and beyond it’s basically not a problem. It used to be a problem to me at almost all distances with the sigma 50 1.4 pre-art though.
John -- The issue of focus shift is very minimal for me. I never have been troubled by it, since I seldom shoot in that "f/2.8 Danger Area".
Generally, for best/softest use, I shoot from f/1.2-1.8. The fewer times I've used f/2.0-3.5, I've not had any serious issues, but it isn't a "look" I am going for, for reasons of not enough DOF or maximum sharpness.
When I want better/best sharpness and DOF, I generally jump to f/5.6 and smaller apertures. This does fine as a very nice standard lens with AF. If I intend to have these types of photos (landscape, buildings, etc.) I tend to go with a MF lens like Zeiss ZE 50/1.4 or Loxia 50 on Sony,,,,,,, or start out the venture with the Sigma 50 Art.
For people artsy shots, my go-to semi-wide to normal lenses are the EF35/1.4L or EF 50/1.2L.
I'm not saying I avoid the f/2.0-3.5 zone, but at distances I'm shooting, it hasn't been an issue that has spoiled many (or any) images. I just know it is a possibility and take extra shots if concerned. I don't think it is an issue for most people either.
I think of the two lenses as the 50L being the "romantic" lens, and the 50 Art as the "technical lens" and don't worry that they are really more alike than different for general purpose.
And on your note about the quality of the 50 Art: my opinion is the Sigma is the best value (especially used) of any AF 50 fast/modern designed lens. I agree, to get better, you really have to move up into the Sony 50/1.2 GM or Canon RF 50/1.2L (I loved this lens when I tried it at Canon Burbank) range to find much better. I would love to see a comprehensive shoot-out between those two modern AF 50s!
The 50L is a slightly more traditional symmetrical design and shows in its performance.
Traditional vs. Modern lens designs? Both have their strengths and weaknesses!
If anyone wants the EF 50mm f/1.2L, they'd better pick it up quickly. I feel a discontinuation coming on. I'd love to get one. I have a thing for the 50mm focal length.
I've half a mind to get it and use it as a webcam with an R6... I've been using my 6D with 24-105/4L I on it and just setting the focus close enough for 1080p, which has worked surprisingly well, but I'd like to try 4k with AF and wider apertures...
And yeah, I'd probably not shoot an EF 50L at anything other than f/1.2 or say f/1.8 to f/2 to add contrast and clean up aberrations.
In my opinion, the Sigma Art is the better of the two lenses, and the more "clinical" and sharp of the two. That said, the Canon L has a softer and more artistic look. Still, if I had to chose one, I would take the Sigma for its overall crisper rendering and equally good color.
Also, keep in mind that the Canon 50L still has another 1/2 stop it can open up for slightly more defocused blur over the Sigma. I think that is a bonus, especially in dim light such as wedding receptions, etc. I used the lens wide open for my daughter's wedding last October, posed shots in very dim hotel areas with available light.
Gunzorro wrote:
I went out this morning to accumulate some image pair from 50L and 50 Art.
A superb comparison series.
I was faced with the 50L vs Art decision a while back, and like the OP I went with the Sigma. It's a great lens with very fast, consistent and accurate AF when used on my R and R6 and I still think I made the right decision overall, but I do marginally prefer the 50L version of every image in that comparison. The transition from focused to OOF just looks that bit smoother with the 50L.
Never used the Canon 1.2L but the Sigma 50 art is one of my favorites. I think the contrast and colors are amazing. You should try both (easy enough to rent) and see which one you prefer. I love my Canon L zooms, but for primes lately I've been going with Sigma Art series (except for Canon 100 f/2.8 macro). No regrets. Only downsize is size and weight.
The Sigma 50 art a little on the bulky side, but it's sharp, quick, and does the job well. I've used my copy for about 3 years now for weddings and portraits and I'm getting bored of the rendering, when put side-by-side with images from my 85L, the colors and tones look quite... basic.
One note about the 50 art, there are duds out there, my copy focused inconsistently with my 5DIV. I shoot mirrorless now and it has no problems.
If you were having focusing problems with your DSLR and not with your mirrorless camera it’s clearly a problem with your DSLR and not the lens. You shouldn’t have and back-focussing or front-focusing problems with a mirrorless camera. All lenses perform more accurately and more consistently on a mirrorless camera than on a DSLR. That is one huge advantage of mirrorless cameras - especially with f1.2 lenses. When I shot with the 5D II and 85/1.2L I would never shoot at f1.2 because it was always a hit and miss.
NickJL wrote:
One note about the 50 art, there are duds out there, my copy focused inconsistently with my 5DIV. I shoot mirrorless now and it has no problems.
bobbytan wrote:
If you were having focusing problems with your DSLR and not with your mirrorless camera it’s clearly a problem with your DSLR and not the lens. You shouldn’t have and back-focussing or front-focusing problems with a mirrorless camera. All lenses perform more accurately and more consistently on a mirrorless camera than on a DSLR. That is one huge advantage of mirrorless cameras - especially with f1.2 lenses. When I shot with the 5D II and 85/1.2L I would never shoot at f1.2 because it was always a hit and miss.
Yes, the old Sigma 50mm f/1.4 was much maligned due to focus issues. I just bought one at a bargain to use with my R. Optically, it's not bad. The focusing is far from smooth, but I don't really have any issues using it wide open. There are entirely new issues, though, as there seems to be some problems with metering using it on the R system, which can affect the autofocus if you let it.
Point is, the R system AF allows older lenses with known focusing issues to perform much better.
I just did a shoot with an R6 and adapted EF 50mm 1.2L. Everything was shot wide open. Pretty much every shot static or moving subject was tack sharp. But the most incredible thing was how sharp this lens really is given an accurate AF system. The rendition and color is equally brilliant. Right now my only RF lenses are 28-70 F2L and 70-200 F2.8L. I had planned on adding the RF 50 1.2L to the mix but will shelve the idea after seeing the files last night.
I had the EF 50mm 1.2 twice. I have the newer RF now, have tried some Sigma, but on a budget would still consider the EF 50mm 1.2. It's light weight was a refreshing quality.
In my opinion, the Sigma Art is the better of the two lenses, and the more "clinical" and sharp of the two. That said, the Canon L has a softer and more artistic look. Still, if I had to chose one, I would take the Sigma for its overall crisper rendering and equally good color.
Also, keep in mind that the Canon 50L still has another 1/2 stop it can open up for slightly more defocused blur over the Sigma. I think that is a bonus, especially in dim light such as wedding receptions, etc. I used the lens wide open for my daughter's wedding last October, posed shots in very dim hotel areas with available light.
Sorry, I don't have any easily available humans to be my guinea pigs (following over 40 years of terrorizing all in my immediate vicinity). I certainly don't want to be reduced to the sort of people shots shown by the staff reviewers at DPR!
